Essay by Eric Worrall
Some scientists are at a loss to explain the 2024 heat bump, 0.2C above what models predicted.
Fewer low-altitude clouds may explain ‘missing’ 0.2C of warming from Earth’s hottest year: study
By environment reporter Peter de Kruijff
Fri 6 Dec
In short:
Fewer-than-expected low-lying clouds has been identified as a potential reason behind mystery global warming in 2023.
Last year was the hottest on record, reaching 1.45 degrees of warming since pre-industrial times, well over climate predictions of 1.25C of warming for 2023.
What’s next?
More research is needed to understand why there were fewer clouds and whether drops in cloud cover are tied to global warming.
A drop in the number of low-altitude clouds was behind unexplained warming that contributed to the world’s hottest year on record, a new study suggests.
The record-breaking heat of 2023, which saw the planet warm an average 1.45 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial surface temperatures, took many climate scientists by surprise.
Their closest predictions, which simulated the effects of human-created warming and other known drivers, were around 0.2C lower than observed temperatures.
…
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies director and climatologist Gavin Schmidt, who was not involved in the study, said the research “goes some way into explaining the process of recent warming.
“But we still aren’t able to say why the albedo has been changing so much, and so there is still more to do before we can say what this means going forward.”
…
Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2024-12-06/clouds-climate-change-warming-planetary-albedo/104680446
The study referenced by the article above;
Recent global temperature surge intensified by record-low planetary albedo
HELGE F. GOESSLING, THOMAS RACKOW AND THOMAS JUNG
5 Dec 2024
DOI: 10.1126/science.adq7280Abstract
In 2023, the global mean temperature soared to almost 1.5K above the pre-industrial level, surpassing the previous record by about 0.17K. Previous best-guess estimates of known drivers including anthropogenic warming and the El Niño onset fall short by about 0.2K in explaining the temperature rise. Utilizing satellite and reanalysis data, we identify a record-low planetary albedo as the primary factor bridging this gap. The decline is apparently caused largely by a reduced low-cloud cover in the northern mid-latitudes and tropics, in continuation of a multi-annual trend. Further exploring the low-cloud trend and understanding how much of it is due to internal variability, reduced aerosol concentrations, or a possibly emerging low-cloud feedback will be crucial for assessing the current and expected future warming.
Read more: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq7280
There is a fairly obvious possible explanation for unusual weather anomalies this year. Note I first heard this prediction from climate scientist Jennifer Marohasy, but I can’t recall if she published a paper.
Tonga eruption increases chance of temporary surface temperature anomaly above 1.5 °C
Published: 12 January 2023
Stuart Jenkins, Chris Smith, Myles Allen & Roy Grainger
On 15 January 2022, the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai (HTHH) eruption injected 146 MtH2O and 0.42 MtSO2 into the stratosphere. This large water vapour perturbation means that HTHH will probably increase the net radiative forcing, unusual for a large volcanic eruption, increasing the chance of the global surface temperature anomaly temporarily exceeding 1.5 °C over the coming decade. Here we estimate the radiative response to the HTHH eruption and derive the increased risk that the global mean surface temperature anomaly shortly exceeds 1.5 °C following the eruption. We show that HTHH has a tangible impact of the chance of imminent 1.5 °C exceedance (increasing the chance of at least one of the next 5 years exceeding 1.5 °C by 7%), but the level of climate policy ambition, particularly the mitigation of short-lived climate pollutants, dominates the 1.5 °C exceedance outlook over decadal timescales.
Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01568-2
The drop in global cloud cover might not be related to Hunga Tonga – it could be Hunga Tonga had no impact, and the drop in cloud cover driven by unknown forcings is the culprit. But a prediction of a global temperature bump and unusual weather, followed by a global temperature bump and unusual weather, seems to be one hell of a coincidence.
If Hunga Tonga is the mystery factor behind the global drop in cloud cover, if one single volcanic eruption can take scientists like Gavin Schmidt by surprise by causing a 0.2C bump in global temperature, natural forcings surely deserve far more attention as potential contributors to global warming. At the very least this is a potent reminder there are still large gaps in our understanding of the global climate system.
The other takeaway from the current bump is wild predictions 1.5C of global warming will cause climate disasters has now been demonstrated to be nonsense. If it wasn’t for climate scientists pronouncing the 0.2C rise in temperature, who of us would have noticed?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What the media say and what the data say are two different things.
It is almost like they are just guessing…
This graphic shows albedo dramatically dropping after Tonga. Link … https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Olilla-Record-Temperature-2023.pdf
That is an incredible dip on the albedo line. There is nothing remotely similar in the entire rest of the time period of the chart.
I understand that correlation is not causation, but I am not a big fan of coincidences either.
1.) Are there any physical speculations of how Hunga Tonga could have caused such a massive drop in albedo?
2.) Are there any other models currently being proposed to explain the huge decrease in albedo?
3.) Is the albedo number easily measured, or is it subject to some fairly wide error bars?
Dittos. The climate alarmist community will not show this data because they don’t want you to know that Tonga’s water-vapor is producing the 2023/24 heating — versus CO2. None of the models can explain the lower albedo just like they cant’ explain the recent monsoon-like rains over the Sahara, the unusual equatorial Atlantic cooling this summer, or the early polar outbreaks with increasing snows. These are all unprecedented — and all following the unprecedented Tonga volcano. Javier Vinos has the best understanding of what is happening regarding lower albedo following Tonga, which is related to Tonga’s water-vapor heating of the lower stratosphere (and troposphere) and how it is altering stratosphere circulations (as seen in my cartoon). Here is a Vinos post … https://x.com/JVinos_Climate/status/1865307938425901433 … I highly recommend Javier Vinos’ climate books.
They are of course.
Question is, how much is the El Nino event and how much is HT ?!
A weak El Nino can’t cause a stronger temperature spike. I cover this in my Tonga Talks. There is evidence that Tonga produced the recent El Nino … https://x.com/JVinos_Climate/status/1844656540453658666
Only a weak El Nino if you look at the ENSO indictor regions.
It was earlier, and much more widespread and released a lot of energy into the atmosphere, as shown by the response in the troposphere (see graph below.)
How much of that was the HT influence.. hard to know.
It’s not that hard when presented with data. This dual graphic shows that Tonga was the primary driver for the recent El Nino. Here is the detailed explanation … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7GN96BUCEo
Can I assume the name at the bottom of the graph should be Andy May? 😉
Correct. Thanks. Updated.
A 0.1% increase in Atmospheric Water Vapor caused that?
Tonga instantly vaporized 40 billion gallons of sea water and increased the Stratospheric water-vapor by about 13%. That is an unprecedented amount which produces an unprecedented warming spike.
40 billion of an existing 36 or so trillion, is only 0.1%
36 Trillion is NOT in the stratosphere. !
The data don’t say that the 0.6C rise was due to HTH. That is your assumption.
I thought I made it clear the link is speculative – my speculation.
Eric, check out these NSW electricity commercials from the mid-1980s promoting the state’s cheap, reliable, and abundant energy.
I promise you’ll get a kick out of them considering what’s been going on in recent weeks.
It seems that so-called progressives are literally taking us backward!
https://youtu.be/tEpXRt0AFxY
Yep, saw them last time you posted. A real measure of how far living standards have dropped.
Cheers, Eric.
🙂
The data says 0.6 C … or maybe even 0.7 C.
Yes, but where does it say HTH?
Another excellent example of climate alarmists not being allowed to exercise critical thinking but to only follow the narrative. However … here is some help — but only for those with open minds … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7GN96BUCEo
Where does it NOT say HTH? You are just trolling with a red Herring. If you think it isn’t, then show your data refuting it
All post hoc explanations are assumptions because the theory failed.
From the paper
Emerging low-cloud feedback? We know the models assume clouds. It doesn’t get any clearer than that. They’re fits and they have no projective capability but that doesn’t stop you, Nick, from somehow believing they’re physics based. The CFD in the atmospheric part of the calculation is irrelevant to that.
Let’s start with the fact that “global” warming isn’t “global” at all.
Following acceptance of that fundamental fact, most of the formulaic climate “constructs” fall apart accordingly.
According to the UAH MSU global T anomaly map for 1979 – 2020 (available on the website) the warming is virtually global but is far from uniform suggesting that natural factors are at least as important as the increasing atmospheric concentration of the well-mixed GHG CO2.
Here in Melbourne, Australia, the November average temperature for 2024 was up 3C on November 1974.
Looking under the hood, the daily average maximums are up from 24 to 25C. The daily average minimums were up from 10C to 15C. So the average rise is from 17C to 20C. A whopping 3C increase over the past 50 years.
In my view, November was delightfully balmy – pleasantly warm days and comfortably cooler nights. In the view of the BoM, it was the hottest November evah.
The whole climate charade is on the precipice of collapse. Scammers torturing data to make it appear bad when the natural rise in temperature out of the coldest period in the last 8,000 years is improving the human condition. And all plant life is responding spectacularly to China’s unrelenting commitment to enrich the atmosphere with much needed CO2.
.
Eric,
The HTH paper you cited calculated very small effects, max 0.035°C. In fact, it rose about 0.2°C just by 2024.
How can 35mK even be resolved, Stokes?
In fact, it is ridiculous to imply that a single value said to represent a “global average” (such as UAH GLAT) has an accuracy good to even a single decimal place!
Such a calculated value may have a justifiable precision to one decimal place (in degrees C value), but accuracy to that level? . . . no way!
Did the recent reduction in sulphur from shipping decrease cloud nucleation and so decrease cloud cover? That would tend to raise Tmax. Does that give any hint that the clean air acts of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s may have caused some of the warming that was attributed to CO2? The T that we hear about is Tavg = (Tmax+Tmin)/2. Increased CO2 reduces cooling so tends to raise Tmin, reduced cloud would tend to raise Tmax.
2023 had 6 months under the strong influence of the El Nino event (say, +0.5C value on graph)
2024 looks like having 11 months at least under that influence which peaked in April 2024.
2024 will therefore have a higher average.. basic mathematics.
I suspect the influence of HT is twofold
1… added extra energy to the already forming El Nino event, triggering an earlier start in the year.
2… the WV in the stratosphere not allowing the energy from the El Nino to escape as easily as in the 1998 and 2016 El Ninos
Note: for the graph I have tried to align what I see as the start point (ie the dot) of each El Nino to zero so we can see the atmospheric effect of each of the El Ninos.
The months along the horizontal axis start at 1 = January for the given year of the graph.
perhaps you can explain how a volcanic eruption can add energy to an El Niño event?
What does that even mean? How do you define the energy in an El Niño event?
OMG, Izzy thinks an underwater volcano doesn’t add heat energy to the water.
You are getting dumber each comment you make, Izzy-dumb.
You can see how much energy is released to the atmosphere, by its effect on the atmosphere
DO you DENY that the 2023 El Nino started much earlier in the year than usual?
Do you DENY that it has been much more protracted than usual ??
Do you DENY the GHE of atmospheric H2O in slowing the escape of energy ???
The Hunga-Tonga eruption released about 2×10^17 J of energy. See “https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00193-022-01092-4” for details. That would be enough to heat the oceans by about 45 nanokelvin. Which is not going to make any difference to an El Nino event.
And you still haven’t stated how you want to define the energy in an El Nino event? Unless you can define what you mean by that phrase and how much energy you think it involves it is pointless to claim that a volcanic eruption could have an effect on it. Heating even a small fraction of the ocean by 1 degree for example would require vastly more energy than any single volcanic eruption could produce.
WRONG, see John Shewchuk’s posts further up the post., showing clearly the strong HT effect.
DO you DENY that the 2023 El Nino started much earlier in the year than usual?
Do you DENY that it has been much more protracted than usual ??
Do you DENY the GHE of atmospheric H2O in slowing the escape of energy ???
Don’t weasel out !
And HT only needed to heat the ocean above the volcano and in the near surface ocean in the Pacific, not the whole ocean, so wherever you got your value, just shows how little you thought before posting !
And of course CO2 could NEVER heat the ocean by even a tiny infinitesimal fraction of a degree.
You still need to define what you mean by the energy in an El Nino event. Unless you can do that and come up with a figure for how much energy that is and how you define it then it is pointless to claim that any volcanic eruption released enough energy to alter it.
OMG. Look at the graph, dum-dum
Which event had the most impact on the tropospheric temperature?
Even a 5-year old could see which one…
… but, obviously it is WAY beyond you !!
Noted… you weaselled out of the three answers. Not unexpected
DO you DENY that the 2023 El Nino started much earlier in the year than usual?
Do you DENY that it has been much more protracted than usual ??
Do you DENY the GHE of atmospheric H2O in slowing the escape of energy ???
Why would a local volcano heat all of the earths oceans?
Do you know what a red herring is is in an argument?
It is not a red herring but rather an illustration of the relative size of the eruption compared to the amount of heat stored in the ocean. Even if you confine the effect of the eruption to 1 millionth of the ocean the effect would still be less than 0.05 degrees.
So while no doubt the eruption locally heated the ocean the size and the amount of heating was about as significant as someone urinating in a public pool. It might be measurable but it doesn’t have any significant effect.
It is a total red herring and attempted petty evasion.
DO you DENY that the 2023 El Nino started much earlier in the year than usual?
Do you DENY that it has been much more protracted than usual ??
Do you DENY the GHE of atmospheric H2O in slowing the escape of energy ???
I suppose you think it wasn’t the HT eruption that affected the Antarctic sea ice, even though the warm blob was clearly visible in the ocean data.
Remain clueless. It is your only MO.!
Same with the atmosphere. HT added approx. 0.1% WV, is that even detectable??
Since “size” does seem to matter in regard to ocean heating, why does size NOT matter in regard to atmospheric heating?
CO2 is just 0.04% of the atmosphere. It reflects a minuscule amount of light energy back towards Earth.
At night, in cloudy weather, at certain latitudes, and in certain seasons, CO2 reflects very little light energy or no energy at all.
If thousands of mostly uncharted under sea volcanoes and thermal vents have a negligible impact on ocean temperatures, why should anyone believe that CO2 can literally change the Earth’s climate?
After producing the attached graph I have similar “suspicions”.
Note the differences between the magnitude and timing of the 2015-6 El Nino “pulses” in the NINO-3.4 and UAH datasets (which are very similar to the 1997-8 ones) and the 2023-4 El Nino.
Note also that “one weird thing” thinking should be avoided when trying to explain both the “earlier” start to the UAH ramp-up / response to the ENSO “trigger” and its persistence in “not allowing the energy to escape”.
Forgive my untrained eye but it looks to me like there’s a pretty obvious warming trend from about 2011. Ok, Hunga Tonga might have added a bit of icing on the cake but otherwise, it looks like the trajectory was going to go upwards anyway. Lack of cloud cover, CO2, whatever…. temperature on the way up. Once the affects of HT have disappeared from the scene, if the trend keeps rising, don’t some skeptics believe it’s worth at least considering CO2 as one of many potential drivers?
There is absolutely no empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 has caused any warming.
There is zero CO2 warming signal apparent in the atmospheric data.
It has been tested, and has been found wanting.
I see you repeat this information a lot and to as many contributers as possible. I have at no stage either agreed or disagreed with AGW theory. However, I am in agreement with enquiry and observation. The earth’s climate is to a large extent controlled by a greenhouse effect, that I think all would agree is beneficial to life on earth.This is well established science. My understanding is that CO2 is one of several known greenhouse gases. Are you telling me this isn’t true?
What if there is no ‘greenhouse’ effect? Dr Markus Ott explains ‘greenhouse’ theory, why it is garbage and presents a more plausible explanation of the planet’s temperature:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj6ORbRBZ2s
Well all they have to do is PRODUCE the evidence… and they CAN’T.
Your understanding is guided by brain-washed AGW mantra , not science.
I am telling you there is no empirical scientific evidence anywhere that CO2 causes warming.
If you don’t believe me, then go and find it and produce it.
None of the other AGW-trollettes that visit here has ever been able to do so.
Name a single scientist who agrees with you.
Again, unable to produce a single bit of evidence.
A constant FAILURE to the AGW-cult, aren’t you, little child.
Most skeptics already accept that fact. It’s really only the likes of bnasty who still lurk in the true dark ages.
Again, mutt..
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
3… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured scientific evidence for your answer.
It is you who is trapped in the dark recesses of brain-washed idiocy…
… and until you can answer those questions, you are STUCK there.
Your constant abuse of other contributors and repetition of the same questions does you no favours in balanced debate. In fact, your approach tends to make me question your mental health and ability to reason things through properly. I’m genuinely neutral as regards AGW. I enjoy articles that are of genuine interest and that challenge the mainstream, just because I believe it’s good for science for any theory to be challenged. But your approach detracts from genuine enquiry.
WUWT does occasionally present some very interesting articles that are clearly well researched. However, there are far too many articles that betray obvious bias and are at least as guilty of cherry picking the evidence as the media are of over exaggeration. At least with the media, their reason for being is sensationalise in order to survive. I guess WUWT has resorted to similar tactics on the opposing side 😉
“cherry picking the evidence”
Cherry picking what evidence?
It’s the lack of evidence that CO2 is a problem that WUWT points out in all their articles.
WUWT just covers the Climate Alarmist “news of the day”, posts the pertinent passages, and then allows the WUWT commenters to do their thing: Heap criticism on people who can’t tell the difference between what constitutes evidence and what constitutes speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions.
WUWT skeptics point out the difference.
Clearly not always true! I’ve read several WUWT articles that present the case in an extremely biased manner by manipulating the data. While I agree that AGW mainstream science may well be guilty on this front too, that doesn’t excuse contributors on this site from effectively engaging in the same tactics. If you’re all so keen to shout “fraud”, then you’d better make sure you’re squeaky clean! For example, one article I read recently showed zero warming on the UAH graph by carefully selecting the start and end point of a period within the graph. Anyone with even just the faintest idea of how a trend works can see for themselves that, when taken a whole, the trend on the UAH graph is upwards. It’s completely disingenuous to present data any other way. Polarising the argument on your side in a vain attempt to counter the extremes of the opposing camp just doesn’t work. As I’ve said before it just makes the mire stink all the more.
You mean looking at periods BETWEEN El Nino events.
Showing that those El Nino events are the ONLY warming in the whole UAH data??
You obviously have zero clue how to look at what is really happening in the data, and just like most AGW linear trend monkeys, want to slap a line through the whole data.. because it suits your beliefs.
Yes, you are definitely a low-end AGW cultist trying to pretend to be neutral.. and failing.
As I’ve said before, your constant disparaging comments aimed at those who don’t agree with your views does neither you nor your line of reasoning any favours. Actually, I’m quite happy to accept to a certain extent that El Ninõ spikes have helped to create an upward trend on the graph. However, why then has this effect been balanced off by La Nina periods? We would expect a balancing effect. Is there evidence that part of the reason El Ninõ events have become more powerful because there’s more heat to fuel them? If so, where is the excess heat coming from? There may well be perfectly reasonable “natural driver” explanations to all of this but so far, I don’t see very much published literature to support the nature phenomena explanation. Maybe such research will start to emerge in due course? I completely agree that, there is a huge amount riding on all of this, politically, and that there is a lack of transparency in getting alternative views on the table to be published – and that does make me nervous! That’s why I’m asking questions! So please don’t assume that I’m masquerading as anything other than a realist who is looking for answers. And please stop abusing other contributors, as it harms rather than strengthens your case.
Nobody is going to believe anything you say without supporting documentation. Show us the manipulated data.
Ok, if you insist! From 2 weeks ago,
Greenland Surface Temperatures Fall for 20 Years in Fresh Blow to Climate Alarm Narrative.
This article most certainly cherry-picked the data. And at the risk of appearing biased or in favour of AGW, Anthony Blanton clarified the context of Greenland temperature by providing clear evidence of the much broader context of Arctic temperature rise etc. In fact he completely wiped the floor with the article… that’s if you’re looking at it from a neutral viewpoint. Articles like this are of no benefit at all, as they detract from serious study and enquiry.
It wasn’t “cherry-picked”. The data was carefully selected to examine varying conditions. The real issue is how well mixed CO2 can result in local and regional differences as compared to a massively averaged global anomaly.
Nothing you refer to resolves that issue.
“Your constant abuse of other contributors and repetition of the same questions does you no favours in balanced debate.”
Totally right.
You wouldn’t have clue what a balance debate is.
You have outed yourself as an AGW stall-wart trying to pretend to be rational.
You are the one with questionable mental health.. pretending to be neutral.
I ask the same questions because none of these AGW clowns can EVER answer them.
Perhaps you would like to try to answer the questions that fungal has deliberately avoided for a long long time. !
I think he doth protest too much 😌
No, he’s right about the AGW clowns. They never have an answer when asked for evidence proving their claims about CO2. Not one time. Not in all these years.
In the case of Mr Oxyoron, There is no, repeat no, evidence that he would accept.
So what is the point pointing to any?
His is a bigoted ideolog – actually yesterday, (somewhere) he posted a graph that he thought showed that CO2 only made more LWIR exit via the atmospheric window.
Such is his blatent ignorance that he actually advertises it.
Of course increasing CO2 means that the Earth has to warm (SB relation) in order to regain balance of solar in vs LWIR out.
It does that by the higher frequency (shorter wavelength) LW making that exit to space.
There is no way – as someone once famously said to ..
“Talk to an idiot, as he will drag you down to his level and beat you by experience”.
By the way, he is not alone here.
So the 95% remain in ignorance, egged on by the hugs/kisses and echoes of the crowd.
There is plenty of disagreement about the ongoing effects of the Hunga Tonga eruption. See for example:
“Evolution of the Climate Forcing During the Two Years After the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai Eruption”
which states that “The Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai (Hunga) submarine volcanic eruption on 15 January 2022, produced aerosol and water vapor plumes in the stratosphere. These plumes have persisted mostly in the Southern Hemisphere throughout 2022 and into 2023. … The Hunga climate forcing has decreased to near zero by the end of 2023.”
hence it would not have contributed to the warming in 2024.
Izzy doesn’t think the GHE works for a large increase in WV in the stratosphere… Izzy-dumb.. or what !
The plumes of WV in the stratosphere are still there over the higher latitudes, gradually dissipating
you need to take it up with the authors of the cited paper. They state that
“The water vapor anomaly has persisted throughout 2022 and 2023 (M24).
The presence of water vapor led to a tropical stratospheric cooling of
∼4 K in March and April (Schoeberl et al., 2022, hereafter S22) due to the
increased outgoing IR radiation. This cooling produces a secondary
circulation (Coy et al., 2022) that decreased extra‐tropical temperatures”
So the water vapour that you are discussing is in fact decreasing the temperature not raising it.
WRONG.. Data shows water vapour still hanging about in the higher latitudes of both hemispheres.
What you have copy pasted has only highlighted your ignorance of what you are copy-pasting. They are talking about the stratosphere, dum-dum !
Great to know you now deny the GHE effect of WV even exists.. its hilarious. !
“tropical stratospheric cooling of..”
LOL, so dumb he doesn’t realise that stratospheric cooling goes along with tropospheric warming.
Do you DENY that the troposphere WARMED from early 2022 to mid 2023??
Do you DENY that the El Nino event has been much more protracted than the 1988 and 2016 El Ninos ??
“They are talking about the stratosphere, dum-dum !”
But so are you. You stated: “The plumes of WV in the stratosphere are still there”. And the authors of the quoted paper state clearly that water vapour in the stratosphere produces cooling by increased outgoing IR radiation.
So you are DENYING that WV slows the release of energy.
You have just destroyed the whole GHG AGW warming meme..
well done. ! 🙂
Do you DENY that the troposphere WARMED from early 2022 to mid 2023 ??
Do you DENY that the El Nino event has been much more protracted than the 1988 and 2016 El Ninos ??
Seems you are in a deep state of “climate denialism”
NOPE! You need to take it up with the authors you are using as a reference. If you think someone has something wrong, then get your authors to refute it.
0.1% is a large increase??
There is no other logical explanation for the 2023/24 heating spike other than Tonga’s water-vapor — as confirmed by your lack of identifying an alternative forcing agent.
That is some very spurious logic right there. Where did I ever say anything about alternative forcing agents. The only thing that I mentioned was that there was disagreement about the effect of the eruption. If you dislike the conclusion of the paper I mentioned then go ahead and refute it by writing an informed response. But claiming that the eruption has to have caused the effect because an anonymous poster on a random website didn’t come up with an alternative explanation is ridiculous and doesn’t even come close to being a scientific argument.
I don’t need to refute it because it’s just like all the other similar articles — they avoid showing the UAH temperature plot because they are not able to explain it. It’s easy to mislead others when ignoring the smoking gun evidence.
so now you seem to going with the logically dubious claim that “correlation is causation”. But no doubt you would deny the same argument made about rising CO2 levels causing temperatures to increase.
There is no need for the paper to show the UAH temperature plot since it is not relevant to the paper. The authors show that the effects of the eruption were small and not significant in 2024.
And the authors are WRONG.
There is still WV blocking the release of energy.
DO you DENY that the 2023 El Nino started much earlier in the year than usual?
Do you DENY that it has been much more protracted than usual ??
Do you DENY the GHE of atmospheric H2O in slowing the escape of energy ???
Have you got any evidence whatsoever that there is any human causation to these totally natural El Nino + HT event of 2022-2024. ?
As to the fantasy of CO2 warming
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
3… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured scientific evidence for your answer.
“And the authors are WRONG.”
and the evidence for that is? I doubt writing “wrong” in capitals counts as scientific reasoning in any rational forum.
Noted that you are still totally incapable of answering a single thing.
Just empty blather. !
The data from John clearly shows the paper is wrong, and is just a feeble attempt to discount the actual affect of the HT eruption.
But don’t concern yourself with data.. you never have before. !
In other words, you have no alternative explanation for the UAH temperature spike other than Tonga’s unprecedented water-vapor. Thanks.
I could say that even Izzy isn’t dumb enough to blame humans or CO2.
But it is quite probable that he really is that dumb.
I am not a climate scientist so why would anybody care whether or not I have an explanation? All I have done is provided a link to a peer reviewed paper that claims that the Hunga-Tonga eruption was too small to have a significant effect and even if it did have any effect that effect finished in 2023 and doesn’t explain the warming in 2024.
And you have yet to provide any evidence to show that the conclusions of the linked to papers are wrong.
All of Al Gore’s forecasts were peer-reviewed for accuracy — and they all failed. Today, peer-review is pal-review — all supporting the fake narrative that CO2 is a control knob — when in fact water-vapor is the biggest, meanest, and strongest greenhouse gas. You’ve been seduced by the climate alarmist cult. Again — you and everyone else have NO other explanation for the UAH temperature spike other than Tonga’s unprecedented water-vapor warming — earth’s primary greenhouse gas. Enjoy Tonga warming while it lasts.
“water-vapor is the biggest, meanest, and strongest greenhouse gas.”
In fact the only so-called GHG that provides any measurable warming effect at all.
I have photographic evidence of water-vapor’s terrifying effects. No wonder Tonga is so hot.
Terrifying Indeed. Brilliant picture. Captures the monstrous beast that was Hunga Tonga perfectly 😬😉😅
John evidence shows categorically that the authors have it wrong.
Sorry if data is a enema to you. !
I mean how DUMB do you have to be to try to discount a truly massive eruption and all the other seismic heating from below the oceans…
… and try to blame warming on a tiny trace gas from above.
Totally anti-physics and bizarrely idiotic !!
Please provide the ratio of the total energy released in CY2022 from the HT eruption and “all the other seismic heating from below the oceans” compared to the total energy from the Sun that was absorbed by Earth’s atmosphere and surface during the same CY2022.
Please use scientific notation to avoid having to write the incredible number of zeros that will be required to the right of the decimal point in your answer, assuming it is approximately correct.
Now, you were saying something about being dumb . . .
Some would say you are not even a thinking human being. Chatbot GP?
.
Just observing that the arrow leading from the text insert with the nice picture of the HT eruption from space is (intentionally?) misplaced . . . it should point to mid-January 2022, not to early-2024.
And in fact, the plotted UAH data and trendline don’t show evidence of a jump in GLAT until about mid-2023, or about 18 months after the HT-injection of water vapor into the stratosphere.
So many commenters here at WUWT just summarily dismiss this incredible delay, which BTW is also present (in different time-delay intervals) in separate posts of Aura MLS-based stratospheric water vapor contour plots.
It is said that “correlation does not necessarily imply causation” . . . so does that mean anti-correlation definitely implies absence of causation?
So many commenters here at WUWT just summarily dismiss……anything that doesn’t chime with the skeptical narrative. Yet, they’re the same ones who summarily claim that AGW science refuses to engage in dissent, which although probably true to an extent, doesn’t justify the same tactics.
Whatever happened to balanced, open-minded debate. Both sides are equally at fault but on this site, the rhetoric is most definitely skeptical – for the most part. I would prefer to see less rhetoric and more balance, otherwise most just fall into the same category as those they accuse of being brainwashed Net Zero cultists….or whatever 🤔
Actually, my observation is that the AGW science supporters on this site, tend to be the ones who provide more reasonable debate, despite all of the general abuse they receive.
“Actually, my observation is that the AGW science supporters on this site, tend to be the ones who provide more reasonable debate,”
The next thing the Climate Alarmists need to do is to provide some evidence that CO2 is doing what they claim it does.
Have you seen any of that evidence yet from those “reasonable debaters”?
I haven’t seen any evidence yet, and I’ve been looking for decades.
Climate Alarmists tell a good tale until you get to the point of requiring evidence and at that point they offer speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions as evidence. This is not evidence of anything.
In other words, they don’t have any evidence that CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential for life on Earth.
If you can find any evidence to the contrary, let us know.
Re: the last paragraph of your post and the phrase “AGW science” . . . isn’t that somewhat of an oxymoron?
I have yet to find substantial science associated with the claims of anthropogenic global warming. You?
You have just shown you are actually a rabid AGW cultist, as I always suspected.
Neutral .. not in the least. !
Sorry. My arrow is accurate in showing the heating peak caused by Tonga. Mt Tambora cooling began 15 months after eruption and Tonga heating began 18 months after eruption. You complain, but like all the others, no one has a logical explanation of the UAH temperature spike other than Tonga’s unprecedented water-vapor. Learn more at my Tonga Talks … http://www.climatecraze.com/talks.php
An unprecedented 0.1%. What’s the annual variation of WV?
I don’t care how many numbers you throw out, but you can’t provide any logical explanation for the UAH temperature spike other than Tonga’s unprecedented water-vapor induced temperature spike.
You still haven’t logically explained how 0.1% (40 billion gallons vs 36 trillion gallons) can make that much of a difference. Spikes happen all the time for no explicable reason, and it certainly wasn’t global.
The 36 trillion are not in the stratosphere. The 40 billion are/were.
Makes a difference.
So the WV went from the ocean all the way to the stratosphere, without depositing any along the way? Sounds like BS to me. And it went all over the Northern Hemisphere without touching anything but the stratosphere?
Yep, there would have been a whole lot added to the troposphere as well, a fact often neglected.
Not to mention the energy added to the ocean to volatilise that amount of H2O
Google’s AI has an answer for you, assuming you were asking about the stratosphere: typically between 1 and 4 ppmv (see attached screen grab).
To put that in perspective with many previous posts of Aura MLS contour plots—such as that posted by bnice2000 above on December 8, 2024 2:40 pm, Richard M below at December 9, 2024 7:24 am, as well by others under other WUWT articles on the same topic—as regards the (presumed) increase in stratospheric water vapor due to the Hunga-Tonga volcano eruption of January, 2022, one only need note that the scale of the color-coded WV anomalies on those contour plots only covers +/- 1 ppm, obviously over-emphasizing what could be just normal natural variations.
But, of course, this simple fact is not mentioned by those that offer the Aura MLS water vapor anomaly contour plots.
In your fourth sentence, “You complain . . .”
Actually no, I don’t. I just point to facts and (to me) obvious contradictions/inconsistencies in certain WUWT posts.
If you want to label such as “complaining”, go right ahead.
You still complain but still provide no logical alternative reason for the epic temperature spike caused by Tonga’s unprecedented water-vapor induced global heating. Try again please.
“. . . but still provide no logical alternative reason for the epic temperature spike . . .”
There is no need for me to “try again”, as I never assumed I had the abilities to scientifically and reasonably “explain” the spike in UAH GLAT that appears about 18 months after the Hunga-Tonga volcano eruption of January 2022, and therefore I never tried to do such.
However, I do have some ability and experience in detecting “red herrings” when I see them.
As for your claim of “the epic temperature spike”, let’s go with that classification but then you have to explain spikes of similar “epic” magnitude in the UAH GLAT plot which took place from mid-1985 to mid-1988, from late-1992 to mid-1995, and from mid-1997 to mid-1998.
I’ll give you another try at facing reality … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7GN96BUCEo
Hmmm . . . I see that now you are challenging me to face reality, whereas just one post earlier you were asking me to provide an explanation for an “epic temperature spike” (your words).
Well, which is that you want? Please try again.
You mean the non-global temperature spike caused by a 0.1% increase in WV?
NO, the massive and still lingering spike of about 13% increase in the stratosphere. !
Although as of now, that HT injection of whatever mass of WV actually made it into the stratosphere took a scientifically-unexplained delay of about 18 months to reveal its presence to orbiting science spacecraft designed specifically to monitor stratospheric WV perturbations (i.e., the Aura spacecraft and its MLS instrument) and to UAH orbiting satellites used to derive GLAT.
Also, there were no predictions that any increased level of stratospheric water vapor, estimated at 10-15%, would persist for as long as almost 3 years (as of now) after the fact.
I think this phrase is appropriate in this case:
“If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”
Science doesn’t work that way. Guessing proves nothing.
Do you have a proven diffusion equation of water vapor from a point source on the surface throughout the entire stratosphere? Without it, your guess is no better than anyone else’s guess.
Please define what “guess” you assert that I am making.
And apparently you need to know that the Brewer-Dobson circulation patterns in the stratosphere (in both hemispheres) will overwhelm any concentration-gradient induced diffusion rate over horizontal distances of many thousands of kilometers.
BTW, the Scientific Method does indeed include a step of forming an educated guess, which is usually referred to as an hypothesis. See the attached flow chart courtesy of https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method .
You just defined climate alarmism.
It wasn’t just water vapor. What is this article about? There was a decrease in CLOUDS immediately after the HTe which seems to still be present. I haven’t seen any data for 2024 so I can’t be sure.
The water vapor probably didn’t have much initial effect because it was in the stratosphere. Only this year have we seen an increase in the upper troposphere where water vapor is important. This is likely coming down from the stratosphere.
We should find out over the next year by watching clouds and high tropospheric water vapor.
This new albedo/warming paper is strongly reminiscent of my all time ‘science’ favorite, published years ago in the ‘famous’ J. Improbable Research, available at Improbable.com—the same Journal that also brings us the annual Harvard University Ignobel Awards. Very ‘Harvard’ authoritarian.
The seminal ‘science’ paper is titled “Quantum Gravity Treatment of the Angel Density Problem”. The upper density bound is therein proven to depend on the mass of an Angel. It follows that there is no lower density bound, so infinite angels could dance on the end of a pin. But since the actual mass of an Angel is unknown, there is unfortunately some remaining ‘scientific’ uncertainty.
I hope Marohasy writes a paper on it. If you know of a paper she has already published please post.
Unlikely.. The mass of an Angel remains scientifically very uncertain, despite her greatly appreciated clarity on many other mostly ‘oceanic’ matters.
Hmmmmm . . . I thought there was an ecumenical council or some such assembly of renowned theologians 750-800 years ago—perhaps in association with scholastic philosopher Thomas Aquinas—that determined how many angeles could dance on the head of a pin.
If that is true, it should be easy for any professional structural engineer (or even amateur engineer!) to then calculate the average maximum mass of an angel based on the columnar critical bucking strength of the average diameter and length and steel modulus of elasticity of a typical sewing pin (aka using the Euler column formula), assuming of course the pin column is aligned with gravity and applying a loading factor of, oh, say 1.2 to account for the loading induced by the dancing.
I LOVE engineering . . . that field presses on where many scientists fear to tread!
It isn’t that the Sun has been very active with the Aurora Borealis being visble in the US48
Hunga Tonga water vapor has definitely increased the total column water vapor over my Texas site. My 30-year measurement trend (1990-2020) published in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society shows a perfectly flat water vapor trend, as did the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory from 1924 to 1957. My personal data and that by a NASA AERONET photometer in my field both show an increase in total water vapor since 2022. (Historic Hunga Tonga erupted from under the South pacific on 15 Jan 2022.) At least two papers predict the HT water vapor will remain in the upper stratosphere and mesosphere for a decade or more. I am working on a novel method for measuring its profile height. Water vapor is the principle greenhouse gas, so papers predicting an increase in T are certainly on target. My personal measurements will reach 35 years on 5 Feb 2025. Those new data and that from the Aeronet robotic photometer in my field will be published thereafter or as soon as time is available. The attached time series plot shows total water vapor from 1990 to
2020 measured by my original highly stable LED sun photometer plus data from other sources, including several years when NOAA placed a GPS water vapor instrument near my site to check my results.
To clarify for me. The figure shown lists data when there is a flat water vapor trend. I am looking forward to your data showing the increase.
I should note that HT was rumbling away, releasing heat and whatever from at least mid December the year before.
The trend may be flat, but there is distinct variability. Does an increase of 0.1%WV even show on your graph?
And as Roger pointed out, where is the increase on your graph?
Since your plot ends in 2020, I cannot comment on what your data may or may not show for the January 2022 eruption of Hunga-Tonga and later times.
But I will invite you to offer an explanation for your clearly anomalous TPW readings over the interval of 1999 to 2001.
I still believe ongoing reductions in SO2 emissions plays a role in reduced cloud cover.
Or, Tonga volcano warmed stratosphere which reduced the temperature difference between stratosphere and troposphere which lead to less convection and fewer clouds??
Tonga changed the stratospheric circulations, which suppressed clouds — starting with the Brewer-Dobson circulation and its interactions with other circulations.
From Google’s AI:
“The horizontal wind velocity associated with the Brewer-Dobson circulation in the stratosphere is considered very slow, typically less than 1 mm/s” (see attached screen grab).
Since the distance from 20° S latitude (near the HT volcano) to 90° N latitude is about 11,100 km (or 1.1e10 mm), HT water vapor transported by this circulation should have taken around 1.1e10 seconds, or about 350 years to extend through all northern latitudes.
Even to go from 20° S latitude to 90° S latitude, a distance of about 7,800 km, at a horizontal speed of 1 mm/sec, would take about 250 years.
These facts present a real problem for those who want to use Aura MLS contour plots as evidence of the amount and rate of distribution of stratospheric WV attributed to the Hunga-Tonga eruption, since these indicate such WV anomalies extended pole-to-pole by mid-2024, or less than 3 years from the mid-January 2022 HT eruption (see Richard M’s post of December 9, 2024 7:24 am, above, to see just such a plot).
As Thomas Huxley commented ” . . . the great tragedy of Science—the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
You are limiting your concept of the atmosphere to one dimension of average speed, and ignore the interactions of concurrent circulations such as the QBO and Holtan-Tan effect, which after reaching certain thresholds, induce fast moving gravity waves which impact the Polar Vortex and interconnected meridional heat transfer mechanisms in the troposphere. The climate models are not able to replicate these processes and thus make failing forecasts. These are discussed in the imaged Javier Vinos book.
Excellent!
Got any calculation(s) of your own or copied from Vinos’ book to go with that?
That would be redundant. If you can’t afford his book, you can read primary sections of this book which he posted on Climate Etc (https://judithcurry.com/?s=javier+vinos) prior to publishing his book as part of his peer-review process. Just search for “winter gatekeeper” articles. Fascinating reading for which Javier successfully defends all challenges to his findings. If you’re not following Javier Vinos you’re not following climate change … https://x.com/JVinos_Climate
Thanks for those comments, but my request focused on calculations, which you obviously ignored.
And no, I don’t follow “climate change” since no one has been able to offer a widely-accepted definition of what, exactly, that phrase means.
Referencing Google AI is like referencing Artificial Ignorance.
Actually, I suspected you might default to “shooting the messenger”, as it were, instead of addressing the message.
So here’s a scientific reference for circulation speeds in the stratosphere being on the order of 1 mm/sec, as stated by Google’s AI:
“Diagnosing the BDC and estimating its strength is a challenging task due to the fact that the BDC is a zonal mean circulation and that the mean vertical velocities are very slow (less than 1 mm/s).”
— extracted verbatim from The stratospheric Brewer–Dobson circulation inferred from age of air in the ERA5 reanalysis, Felix Ploeger, et.al., Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 21, 8393–8412, 2021; full article available for free at https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/8393/2021/
{quoted extract from the first sentence of the third paragraph of the article’s Introduction}.
Of course, I welcome your citation for a science-based article stating the speeds of WV movement in the stratosphere are, oh, about a factor of one hundred times faster than 1 mm/sec.
Lastly, your earlier reference to “. . . interactions of concurrent circulations such as the QBO and Holtan-Tan effect, which after reaching certain thresholds, induce fast moving gravity waves . . .” has an inherent fault in context. A gravity wave (good example of such are the ripples moving outward from a stone dropped in still water) generally has movement of the medium that is mostly vertical (in a small circular patterns from crest to trough), but it does not cause gross horizontal transport of the medium. Thus, an atmospheric gravity wave, per se, will not move water vapor horizontally across the stratosphere.
For your benefit, a full explanation of an atmospheric gravity wave is available at https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/Miscellaneous/gravity_wave/gravity_wave.html
Your response relies on failed understandings of our atmosphere which is why all models over predict global warming. You have much yet to learn … https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2024/12/04/model-failure/
Then by all means please pass this on to both:
— Felix Ploeger, et.al., that authored the science-based ACP article that I first cited, and
— the authors/editors at http://www.weather.gov that provided the Web article on atmospheric gravity waves that I cited at the end of my above post.
I am sure that both groups will give your observation all the attention that it deserves.
They also need to read the Vinos book.
Ibid.
Those 4 letters don’t explain why all the models are wrong. So, let’s begin your training with this Vinos video … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNgOuROW2iw
Wherever, in any of my previous comments under the above article, did I mention anything about (climate or stratospheric WV dispersion) models?
Reading comprehension 101.
You advancing a “strawman” argument is one thing (actually known as a logical fallacy), but to go so far as to talk about training for such belongs on a planet having two moons, one pink and the other green.
If you’re not following Vinos — you’re not following climate change … https://x.com/JVinos_Climate/status/1866767731074490566
My understanding was that CAGW crowd said clouds had a net warming effect. What has changed?
Low clouds reflect sun and cause cooling. High clouds increase the greenhouse effect and cause warming.
The “net” effect of clouds is cooling. Recall nuclear-winter scares of the past.
Take a few minutes and listen to a great song about clouds, it says it all – Both Sides, Now” by Joni Mitchell.
Not sure if the link between sun spots, solar activity, cosmic rays and cloud cover is completely dead, but the solar activity has been unusually high this year. My understanding is that this should result in less cloud cover and hence more warming.
Recent global temperature surge intensified by record-low planetary albedo
https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/59831/1/adq7280_Merged_AcceptedVersion_v20241206.pdf
“Abstract:
In 2023, the global mean temperature soared to almost 1.5K above the pre-industrial level, surpassing the previous record by about 0.17K. Previous best-guess estimates of known drivers including anthropogenic warming and the El Niño onset fall short by about 0.2K in explaining the temperature rise. Utilizing satellite and reanalysis data, we identify a record-low planetary albedo as the primary factor bridging this gap. The decline is apparently caused largely by a reduced low-cloud cover in the northern mid-latitudes and tropics, in continuation of a multi-annual trend. Further exploring the low-cloud trend and understanding how much of it is due to internal variability, reduced aerosol concentrations, or a possibly emerging low-cloud feedback will be crucial for assessing the current and expected future warming.”
So, absolutely no evidence of human or CO2 causation. Thanks banton !!
Just “previous best guesses” ie NOT EVEN REMOTELY SCIENCE
As shown above, this El Nino added about the same temperature change as the 1998 El Nino, just for a longer period… also no human causation.
As referenced at the bottom of the above paper:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1412190111
Shortwave and longwave radiative contributions to global warming under increasing CO2
Aaron Donohoe
“Significance
The greenhouse effect is well-established. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms. However, climate models forced with CO2 reveal that global energy accumulation is, instead, primarily caused by an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR). This study resolves this apparent paradox. The solution is in the climate feedbacks that increase ASR with warming—the moistening of the atmosphere and the reduction of snow and sea ice cover. Observations and model simulations suggest that even though global warming is set into motion by greenhouse gases that reduce OLR, it is ultimately sustained by the climate feedbacks that enhance ASR.”
Those models are purely numerical blah blah blah. Read Pat Frank’s 2019 paper about model uncertainty.
ROFLMAO.
So when they build FAKE models with FAKE warming from CO2 warming built in..
They get CO2 warming..
I repeat ROFLMOA. !!
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
3… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured scientific evidence for your answer.
So by giving a red thumb, ADMITS that he cannot give any answers.
What a pathetic weasel !
Any tiny change in OLR due to CO2 gets immediately commuted to the atmospheric window.
Hey, Oxy is wearing this ignorance badge loud and proud again.
That graph shows LWIR exiting to space at a higher frequency (shorter wavelength) as time progresses.
You do know that higher frequency ER comes from a hotter source?
So there you see terrestrial LWIR being attenuated and as the Earth warms it is being emitted at a little higher frequency.
Because the Earth is slightly warmer.
So thanks for giving us evidence of AGW.
And the reason you will never accept evidence of that fact.
You wouldn’t know it if it sat up and slapped you in the face.
In fact you’d think it’s the opposite.
It is typical of this place to accept anything posted by denizens to be correct.
Like as if you are sceptics (LOL).
And so it goes that lies and misinformation flurishes and spreads.
As someone has said – the amount of effort needed to refute BS is of an order of magnitude greater than that needed to produce it.
“temperature surge”
Heh, propaganda.
So how would you like the last few months of UAH TLT V6.1.1 to be described?
A wee bit of warming?
The beginning of ‘23 to the peak of the “wee bit of warming” amounted to ~ 1C.
Yep, and absolutely NONE of it was caused by humans or CO2.
“So how would you like the last few months of UAH TLT V6.1.1 to be described?”
I would call it fake news, since it’s not global, in spite of the caption.
An El Nino + HT transient event …. with absolutely zero evidence of any human causation.
While longer sustained than the 1998 El Nino, the actual temperature added is basically the same.
Oh look , still absolutely no evidence of human causation.
Best Banton can manage is a red thumb.
These temperature averages of averages cannot describe “the climate”.
A cold front rolls through my area and the temperature can easily drop 50F in less than a day, that graph is barely a blip in comparison.
Change of goalpost position.
I replied to your reflexive ideologically driven “hey propaganda” comment..
It doesn’t describe the climate (30 years).
It describes a brief phenomena.
That indeed “temperature surge” perfectly describes.
It seems that if elevated water vapor levels in the Mid Stratosphere are the forcing that caused this warming, then the downwelling IR should cause fewer clouds. HT Vapor is causing fewer clouds.
From the article: “Last year was the hottest on record, reaching 1.45 degrees of warming since pre-industrial times, well over climate predictions of 1.25C of warming for 2023.”
It was just as hot in 1934 in the United States. The year 1934 is not “pre-industrial”.
These “hottest on record” temperatures are generated from a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick global “temperature” chart.
The Climate Alarmists are lying to us in an effort to promote their anti-CO2 narrative. The written temperature record proves they are liars.
The 1850-1880 benchmark for temperature happens to be the lowest temperature in the 19th century.
One might think they cherry picked the starting point.
Higher temperature = hotter water = more evaporation = more water vapor = more clouds?
How do we get less clouds? I can’t find straightforward reasoning to explain less clouds.
Did the volcano throw extra particles that seeded rain and lessened clouds? The volcano would have to be enormous to cause detectable global change more than 2 years later.
Yes, but you have to consider the atmosphere’s vertical temp structure over the tropical ocean. It is very close to conditional instability. (Dependent on humidity to drive lift).
A little warmer/moister and up go the Cu/Cb.
A little cooler/drier and Sc cloud layers (the cooling kind) form under the inversion formed via the cooling of the atmosphere above to around the top of the boundary layer.
And rising thermals then spread out into layered Sc cloud with no further vertical development.
Warm the ocean locally and that process is removed.
Hence open convective development and ASR is increased into the ocean.
So, totally natural weather and atmospheric patterns, with absolutely zero evidence of any human causation.
Seems the red thumber still can’t find any evidence of human causation.
Sadly pathetic. !!
I rest my case 🙂
More than PATHETIC. !
Must be Banton !
Bless, Oxy can only manage 3 minor rants in response.
Try harder and then I may have the great pleasure in seeing Charles tell you off for “harassment’.
Not that I mind – it merely shows you up to be either in fact or by design via your avatar – to be moronic.
I can’t find a Google decode for ASR. I’m guessing the SR = Surface Radiation?
Absorbed Solar Radiation.
Let’s think about it, aren’t condensation nuclei necessary for the formation of aerosol from water vapor?
And there lies a big problem with the climate models — science is still not sure how and when and where clouds form — which is a big reason why the models fail.